Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 222

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Hota Venkata Surya Sivarama Sastry and another, Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 646 and 647 of 1960, D/-28-4-1961
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri. Senior Advocate (Mr. T. Satyanarayana, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; M/s A. Ranganatham Chetty, S. V P. Venkatappayya Sastri and T. M. Sen. Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.RANGANADHAM CHETTY, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, S.V.P.VENKATAPPAYYA SASTRI, T.M.SEN, T.SATYANARAYANA

The definition of "estate" in the Abolition Act should be interpreted to mean that any land held on the tenures specified and within the territorial operation of the Act fell within the category of "estates" liable to be taken over and vested in the Government.

Headnote:
ABOLITION ACT - ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - MADRAS ACT XXVI OF 1948 - MADRAS ESTATES LAND ACT, 1908 - MADRAS ACT I OF 1908 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - S. 92 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ART. 244, SCH. V, PARA. 5 - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION UNDER S. 1 (4) OF THE ABOLITION ACT - INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF "ESTATE" - APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO SCHEDULED AREAS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, proprietors of Gangole A and Gangole C estates, challenged the validity of a notification issued under S. 1 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), which vested portions of their estates in the Government. The estates were situated in the Godavari Agency tract, which was initially classified as a "Partially Excluded Area" under the Government of India Act, 1935, and was later designated as a "Scheduled Area" under the Constitution of India. The Abolition Act was not initially applicable to the Godavari Agency, but was extended to the area by Madras Regulation IV of 1951. The appellants contended that the notification was invalid because it purported to vest only portions of the estates, which were "units" under the Abolition Act, and that the Act did not contemplate the taking over of parts of estates.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notification was valid and that the Abolition Act did not preclude the taking over of portions of estates. The Court interpreted the definition of "estate" in the Abolition Act to mean that any land held on the tenures specified and within the territorial operation of the Act fell within the category of "estates" liable to be taken over and vested in the Government. The Court also held that the impugned notification was necessary to satisfy the principle underlying the Abolition Act, which was to take over the entirety of estates.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued under S. 1 (4) of the Abolition Act was valid. 2. Whether the Abolition Act contemplated the taking over of portions of estates.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification was valid because it was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Abolition Act and Madras Regulation IV of 1951, which extended the Act to the Scheduled Areas. The Court also held that the definition of "estate" in the Abolition Act should be interpreted to mean that any land held on the tenures specified and within the territorial operation of the Act fell within the category of "estates" liable to be taken over and vested in the Government. 2. The Court held that the Abolition Act did not preclude the taking over of portions of estates. The Court reasoned that the Act posited the unit constituting an estate being taken over, but that this principle was satisfied by the impugned notification, which took over the rest of the estates that were not covered by the earlier notification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the notification was valid and that the Abolition Act did not preclude the taking over of portions of estates.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : These two appeals are by special leave of this Court and arise out of orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ petitions filed before it by the respective appellants in the two appeals.

2. On January 14, 1953, the Government of Madras issued a notification reading, to quote only the material words, "in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 1 (4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) read with S 2 of the Madras Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1951:

The Governor of Madras hereby appoints the 4th of February 1953, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act.....shall come into force in the Estates in the Scheduled Areas of the West Godavari District which are specified in the schedule below :-"

and the schedule set out inter alia:

"1 Agency Area of Gangole A Estate, consisting of........

2 ........................................

3. Agency Area of Gangole C Estate, consisting of .............

" It is the legality of this notification that is impugned by the two appellants who are the proprietors respectively of Gangole A and Ganlgole C estates. The two writ petitions by the appellants which were numbered respectively 28 and 29 of 1953 were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra High Court and appeals under the Letters Patent filed against this common judgment were also dismissed by the learned Judges of that Court. An application for the grant of a certificate was also dismissed but this Court having granted special leave to the appellants, the matter is now before us.

3. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, to which we shall refer as the Abolition Act was a piece of legislation of the State enacted to effect reform in land tenures and land-holding by the elimination of intermediaries. In line, with similar legislation in the rest of the country, the interests of intermediaries - of three categories - the estates of Zamindars, of undertenure-holders and of Inamdars were enabled to be vested in Government on the publication of a notification to that effect, compensation being provided for such taking over. The entire legal difficulties in the case of the Gangole A and C estates which were admittedly Zamindaris arise out of the fact that a small portion of each of them is situated in what is known as the Godavari Agency tract. This Agency area was originally included as part of the Scheduled District of the Madras Presidency under the Scheduled Districts Act XIV of 1874.

4. When the Godavari Agency was governed by the Scheduled Districts Act 1874, the Madras Legislature enacted the Madras Estates Land Act (Act 1 of 1908) which was in force from July 1, 1908. This enactment regulated the rights of, inter alia, the proprietors of zamindari estates and the ryots and tenants who cultivated the lands included in the estates Though, some argument was raised in the High Court, disputing the operation of the Estates Land Act to the Godavari Agency tracts, it has not been repeated before us. That Act on its terms applied to the entire Presidency of Madras and in view of a catena of decisions of the Madras High Court starting from the judgment of Muthuswami Iyer J. in Chakrapani v. Varahalamma. (1895) ILR 18 Mad 227, on the construction of S. 4 of the Scheduled Districts Act XIV of 1874, the contention was hardly tenable and was, therefore, properly abandoned. The position, there fore, was that the entirety of the lands and villages forming Gangole A and C were governed by the Madras Estates Land Act 1908, and were "estates" within the meaning of that enactment. In this situation the Government of India Act 1935, came into force on April 1, 1937. Under its provisions the Godavari Agency was included in the territory classified as "Partially Excluded Areas" under S. 91 of the Act The laws applicable to the "Partially excluded areas"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document